T-Man

My god makes mistakes. My god gives the right blessings to the wrong people. My god sometimes keeps quiet when he sees injustice. My god pretends not to listen to my pleas. My god refuses to let anyone see him. My god is not always right. My god does not makes the right choices. My god sometimes lets bad people roam the earth free. My god lets the good people suffer. Why?

Maybe because, my god is not an all-powerful, all-knowing being. Maybe he is human, just like me and next person. My god makes mistakes, and then he gives himself a chance to correct them, asks for help to correct them. Be it Shiv asking Vishnu to preserve the universe, because he gave the wrong asur a boon. Be it the gods asking Parvati to help defeat Mahisasur, because they gave him a boon. Maybe, this is what makes my god so godly. He asks for help, something we can't do. He accepts his mistakes, something we can't do. He forgives, something we can't do. He speaks up when he must, something we can't. He defends, protects when he must, something we can't do.

i saw somebody say “what if you’re gone and i haven’t become anything yet” and basically that broke me on a random thursday evening

The facts are these: the Mughals may have come to India to conquer, but their culture language and people have assimilated into Indian culture irrevocably, and in a way the British never did. They tried to westernise us (and succeeded, because let's not forget being homphobic and transphobic is western) but the Mughals became a part of the fabric of India.

And even though Indian emperors already had wealth undenaiably even before the Mughals came, the Mughals definately added to the opulence and art. So many of the paintings, architecture and literature that we're so proud of is Mughal.

Whenever I see those posts about how what if India was never colonised and it has Mughal architecture too and people are freaking out in the comments about how Mughals were also colonisers I just-

It's like I understand your point but that's just factually not called colonisation. They were here to conquer, yes, but calling it colonisation is just wrong.

This is the definition of Colonialism according to Merriam Webster:

"domination of a people or area by a foreign state or nation : the practice of extending and maintaining a nation's political and economic control over another people or area

Note: While the word colonialism is sometimes considered to encompass non-state forms of influence and domination, as by corporate or religious entities, in general use it is more typically understood as an extension of state power."

Now the reason that it's wrong to call what the Mughals did this ^^ is because of the difference between the definition of a state during British rule and during Mughal rule.

During the British rule, it was very clearly demarcated nation-state that they wanted to expand economically with trade through capitalism; but during the Mughals, it was a monarchical kingdom used not only for economic gain but to live in and reside over, which was not that much different than the kingdoms that already existed in the area.

Hindu and Mughal kings have a lot more in common than they both do with the British Empire, because they both were trying to conquer territory, whereas the British were trying to expand the influence of their own already established state by making othe resource-rich regions production and trade centers under their control.

also funny how you ignore the fact that these artisans were indian. the mughals didn't bring artisans with them. the people who created these artworks were all indian. from my own visits to the taj mahal or the qutub minar i could tell you they have very little, if any, islamic influence but you're welcome to stonewall on that regard.

if we go by tignor's definition of colonialism it is essentially the control of a region by a foreign group. which is what the mughals were. the definition of a nation state has long been in use before the typical western concept of a nation state was used. i recommend you look up how india was defined.

the point of the argument is that foreign entities do not assimilate in a region, and their continued presence is always the extension of colonisation (which is also the argument you use for native americans, right?).

The unfortunate part of the entire colonial history of India is that Asian colonialism is romanticised, identified with the “Indian culture” and celebrated as the representation of India while European colonialism is demonised. Historians and pop culture have collaborated hand-in-hand to promote this false narrative, which can no longer be the norm in the 21st century.

• Comparison between invaders: Greeks, Mughals, British

During the ancient era, the conquests of the Greeks, the original European invaders, were very different from those of the medieval conquerors. They would treat war as a contest to determine the ruler, and wouldn’t necessarily engage in destroying native cultures, barring a few instances such as the destruction of Persepolis in Persia as vengeance for the destruction of the temple of Athena.

Alexander’s descendants ruled in Bactria and later came to India to rule as Indo-Greeks. They adopted Buddhism and integrated with the local cultures while enriching them. They didn’t impose Greek as a court language — they allowed both Greek and Prakrit to be used in the court — neither did they try to import rulers from Greece on a large scale. The tribe which defeated the Greeks, the Yuezhi from China, continued with the same policies. This was why Kanishka became a popular ruler in India.

The same cannot be said of the Turco-Mongol invaders such as the Mughals or dynasties of Central Asian Turkish origin such as the Khiljis, Thuglaqs, Ghoris, etc. Even though conquest was their prime motivation, contrary to the portrayal in history books and media, they were colonists who, as per the classic dictionary definition, exerted political control occupied the land with settlers and exploited it economically.

While politicians such as Shashi Tharoor use the phrase “they became us” to depict them, the historical records show otherwise. They made attempts to wipe out and suppress the native culture, imposed a foreign language as an official means of communication and their prime intention was to treat the land as a conqueror treats the conquered.

First, the most commonly ignored fact, especially with respect to the Mughals, is the term “Mughal” itself. It’s Persian for Mongol, a term Indians used for the dynasty. Mughals did not use that term; they called themselves Gurkani. Gurkani means “son-in-law”, a reference to Timur being a son-in-law of a descendant of Chengiz Khan.

The court of the Mughals was a bit better than those of the previous Central Asian Islamic invaders, as they slowly inducted a few natives. However, this is celebrated as a massive achievement, and Akbar, the most well-known figure, is portrayed as a “liberal”. Even in Akbar’s court, there were 43 native people (both Indian Hindus and Muslim) noblemen compared to 222 foreign noblemen, by 1580, as recorded by historians Percival Spear and John Keay. This is relatively seen as an achievement because previous rulers didn’t even allow the natives in the royal areas.

The Mughal court was divided into Turani (Central Asian Turkish Sunni) and Irani (Persian Shia) factions. However, nobles from Arabia and North Africa were present, too, in addition to Turks and Persians. Even as late as post-Aurangzeb’s death, when Sayyid brothers, the power centre of the Mughal court (who were from Iraq), cosied up to the natives, abolishing jizya and cow slaughter in many districts, the Turani and Irani factions were outraged.

This trend had not changed in 150-odd years since Akbar had initially abolished jizya and inducted native noblemen in his court, leading to massive outrage. Needless to add, the backers of the Sayyid brothers were Marathas and Rajputs while their main opponent was the Central Asian or Turani Nizam ul Mulk. This clearly suggests that a majority of the rulers possessed a colonial attitude and changes in the status quo resulted in civil wars, death or often revolt.

In 1757, Indian natives had been fed up with centuries of Islamic rule. They were welcoming any attempts to depose the outsiders. The natives in Bengal happily cooperated and financed the British to depose Siraj-Ud-Daullah. Robert Clive celebrated Durga Puja with the natives in Bengal after his victory over Siraj-Ud-Daullah at Plassey.

The Tharoor saying “they became us” and classifying the British rule as an “era of darkness smacks” of a selective attitude. Did Babur celebrate Durga Puja after deposing Ibrahim Lodhi? You know the answer.

It must be noted that India contributed to 25% of the world GDP during the Mughal rule (Aurangzeb’s period), which became 3.4% after the end of the British rule. While romanticizing the Mughal rule one must not forget the fact that GDP is not the sole indicator of economic prosperity as most economists would agree. This was particularly true for Mughal times where nobility lived in grand palaces while the average person lived in abject poverty.

French traveller Bernier during his travel to India noted that in the Mughal capital of Shahjahanabad (present-day Delhi) “a man must be either of the highest ranks or live miserably”. The Frenchmen described the bazaars as dirty, chaotic, full of dust and flies. It’s safe to say the wealth was concentrated in the hands of the rulers while the average citizen lived in abject poverty. Delhi was a city of extremes. Hence, it can safely be concluded that the GDP wasn’t a true reflection of the wealth and prosperity during the Mughal epoch. Also the fact that India was even richer before mughal rule under native rulers cannot be ignored.

While the Mughals being invaders is well documented in history books, ballads and folklore of those who fought them, the education system and pop culture have collaborated to portray them as “Indian” rulers.

Take the case of the movie Jodha Akbar where Akbar is portrayed by an Indian man Hrithik Roshan who bears no similarity in facial features. If one calls this creative licence, why are such liberties not extended to European colonialists? Why aren’t British men played by the likes of Hrithik Roshan and Ranveer Singh? Surely, if you cannot find a talented actor from Central Asia, you can find an Indian with Mongoloid features. That would, however, burst the narrative that Akbar was a quintessential Indian rather badly.

Akbar is portrayed as a man of valour who was adept at warfare. Truth be told, he was not at all adept in battles. Akbar realised this and would, hence, select the best generals and commanders to head his armies.

During the Siege of Chittor, Akbar lost his cool and went about slaughtering the entire populace of Chittor, after his army was held out for eight months. Such an act of brutality was not even performed by the despotic ruler Ala-ud-din-Khilji and Bahadur Shah of Gujarat during the previous two sieges. Consequently, during the Battle of Haldighati, he didn’t engage directly with Maharana Pratap despite a superior cavalry, artillery, and a larger army, but preferred to send another Rajput king Man Singh to fight him.

Let’s begin with intent. The Mughals did not arrive in India with the goal of extracting wealth to enrich a distant homeland. Unlike the British, who treated India as a resource colony to fuel their industrial revolution, the Mughals made India their home. Babur, the founder of the dynasty, may have been a conqueror, but his descendants—Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and even Aurangzeb—saw themselves as Indian rulers. They built their capital cities in India, patronized Indian arts, and integrated themselves into the subcontinent’s political and cultural landscape. This is not colonialism; it is empire-building, a process that has been a recurring theme in Indian history long before the Mughals arrived.

On the matter of cultural imposition, the Mughals were far more syncretic than colonial. Akbar’s policies, in particular, stand out as evidence of this. He abolished the jizya tax on non-Muslims, married Rajput princesses, and incorporated Hindu traditions into his court. His Din-i Ilahi, though short-lived, was an attempt to create a unifying spiritual framework that drew from multiple faiths. While the Mughals did impose Persian as the court language, they did not seek to erase Indian languages or traditions. Persian became a lingua franca, much like English did later, but it coexisted with regional languages and cultures. This is a far cry from the British, who sought to replace Indian systems with their own, often dismissing local traditions as backward.

Economically, the Mughals cannot be equated with colonizers. While it is true that wealth was concentrated in the hands of the elite—a feature common to most pre-modern empires—the Mughals reinvested their wealth in India. They built monumental architecture, funded arts and literature, and developed infrastructure. The British, by contrast, extracted wealth on an unprecedented scale, draining India’s resources to fuel their own industrial growth. The decline of India’s share of global GDP from 25% under the Mughals to 3.4% under the British is a stark reminder of this difference. The Mughals may not have created an egalitarian society, but they did not impoverish India for the benefit of a foreign power.

As for governance, the Mughals were far more inclusive than colonial powers. Akbar’s court, while dominated by Turani and Irani nobles, included Indian Hindus and Muslims. This was a significant departure from the British, who excluded Indians from positions of real power until the very end of their rule. The Mughals’ administrative system, the mansabdari, was open to Indians, and many Rajputs and Marathas rose to prominence within it. The British, on the other hand, maintained a rigid racial hierarchy, treating Indians as subjects rather than partners.

Finally, let’s address the cultural legacy. The Mughals are remembered not as foreign occupiers but as integral to India’s history. Their architecture, from the Taj Mahal to the Red Fort, is celebrated as part of India’s heritage. Their contributions to art, literature, and cuisine are woven into the fabric of Indian culture. The British, by contrast, left behind a legacy of division and exploitation. Their railways and administrative systems, while significant, were designed to serve their own interests, not India’s.

Also even British made beautiful architecture but we don’t call them “Indian rulers” because of obvious reasons. The architecture the mughals made was for their own benefit. The Taj Mahal wasn’t a gift to the locals, it was made for and by the royalty, the same can be said about the red fort. The disdain for local culture and practices can be seen in the destruction of temples and the Jizya tax that was restored after Akbar by his own descendants. “Aurangzeb reimposed the Jizya tax in 1679, after the Mughal ruler Akbar abolished it in the 16th century”.

pjo/hoo/toa + the cycle